[home] [news] [reviews] [features]

page one | page two | page three | page four | PAGE FIVE TODAY, THE BBFC is the most liberal it has ever been. In 2003, they cut 4% of the videos submitted to them - the vast majority of which were R18-rated skin flicks. By contrast, in 1987 that figure was 11.8%.     While these relatively relaxed statistics are good news for horror distributors, Vipco's Mike Lee still can't forget what he and other companies endured. "We were proved correct in the end - they were all wrong. The BBFC now give us certificates for all these films - mostly uncut versions! So who was right? They caved in."     David Hyman attributes the Board's apparent laissez-faire attitude to a year of research into public opinion, which spawned important results in 2000. "One of the main messages was that adults didn't want to be nannied. To put it rather glibly, they wanted to be as shocked and offended as we sometimes are! Unless something was illegal or harmful, they felt they had the right to decide whether they should see it. People said that in the case of a horror film, they were watching it because they wanted to be scared. So we tend to leave horror films alone now, unless they contain what we consider harmful pleasures - and I don't include cannibals and zombies ripping people open in that category, because I'm not aware of that happening much in real life…"     These days, it's frustratingly difficult to argue with a BBFC examiner. In general, horror movies are no longer cut for gore alone. They *are* snipped, however, when they contain "eroticised sexual violence" and/or animal cruelty. If you complain about either, it makes you sound a tad unsavoury.     In many ways, it's heart-warming that some of the nasties will remain banned, thus perpetuating the fun of hunting them down. Hurrah, then, for a recent BBFC decision on the nasty Nazi-fest Love Camp 7. In September 2002, it was re-submitted and rejected outright.     "The film's primary pleasure is non-consensual sex with screaming women being stripped, raped and humiliated," explains David Hyman. "Other nasties in a similar vein would be likely to encounter similar problems. We couldn't even see a way to cut it, even though in terms of detail it's probably not the worst. I know there's the argument that the 'story' really happened: there *were* love camps. But, to be honest, we knew we weren't dealing with Schindler's List."     Andrew Kirkham reveals that HardGore briefly considered submitting Gestapo's Last Orgy and SS Experiment Camp to the BBFC. Ultimately, sense prevailed. "We looked at the uncut prints," he says, "and realised they'd never get through. We heard about someone attempting Love Camp 7, and these movies were worse." SO ARE WE TRULY out of the woods, as regards mad movie witch-hunts? The country's next inexplicable murder may well provide the answer.     "The BBFC has, from time to time, been accused to reacting to media scares," concedes David Hyman. "There is often a lot of hyperbole and inaccuracy involved with such things, but at the time they *are* reflecting concerns. So we have to be responsive to that, while being responsible enough not to go over the top."     Many believe that the BBFC's very existence is threatened by the internet. The advent of super-fast Broadband means that film-makers can download their filthy, violent wares straight into Little Johnny's PC. The Daily Mail surely has headlines prepared, with which to condemn a whole new generation of Cyber Nasties.     "Once you've got Broadband ten times faster than it is now, then forget it," says Marc Morris. "If people want to get hold of a film, they will. Anyway, whatever the BBFC decides, you can get an uncut DVD through mail order, with or without the internet."     "It's always been true that fans of anything will always get what they want, if they want it enough," acknowledges David Hyman, "and the Board's power to prevent people watching certain images is diminishing with broadband. If the public ever show that they don't wish to have anyone regulating their entertainment, the Board's role will change. But people still seem to want mandatory classification."     "The more integrated we become with the EU," offers Vipco's Mike Lee, "the more the BBFC will open their eyes and recognise that our foreign friends see fuller versions than we see in the UK. And eventually, they're gonna have to go with it. Eventually, the BBFC will just be classifiers, not cutting anything."     It's a nice vision. Yet matters could conceivably go entirely the opposite way at the whim of a new BBFC guv'nor. Paranoid types also fear that the internet will be the next entertainment format to undergo enforced regulation.     "Video nasties were something physical which had to be distributed around the country," argues Harvey Fenton. "How can they crack down on the internet? I don't think there's a practical way of doing much about it."     Which is pretty much where we came in… FURTHER READING... Shock! Horror! Astounding Artwork from the Video Nasty Era Marc Morris & Harvey Fenton, FAB Press. See it at Amazon UK or Amazon US Seduction Of The Gullible: the Curious History of the British 'Video Nasties' Phenomenon John Martin, Procrustes Press See it at Amazon UK or Amazon US See No Evil: Banned Films and Video Controversy David Kerekes & David Slater, Headpress See it at Amazon UK or Amazon US The Original Video Nasties Allan Bryce, Stray Cat See it at Amazon UK. The Art Of The Nasty Nigel Wingrove & Marc Morris, Salvation See it at Amazon UK or Amazon US page one | page two | page three | page four | PAGE FIVE features menu | home © Copyright Slasherama 2002-present